Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?

Many people have asked me whether the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAP) would pass constitutional muster. We already know that the proposal for a MAP is wrongheaded, self-serving, deeply reactionary and unnecessary. But if Parliament passed a law that further limited the freedom of the printed media to publish what it deems important, and if such a law subjected the printed media to the dictates of a MAP, would this limitation on the freedom of expression be justifiable in terms of our Bill of Rights?

The short and somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that it is far too early to answer this question.

The various ANC proposals for a MAP and the various justifications for this Tribunal have been so confusing and contradictory that it is impossible to say what such a Tribunal would actually be empowered to adjudicate on, how it would be constituted and what its powers might be.

Last week Julius Malema stated that the ANC has already decided on such a Tribunal and that it wants Parliament to appoint it. He seemed to envisage that such a Tribunal would prevent the printed media from publishing certain facts which had been denied by politicians (and those lucky individuals connected to politicians) because such facts would be “mere gossip”.

These people [members of the printed media] are dangerous. They write gossip and present it as facts.

President Jacob Zuma, citing his experiences in Russia (that bastion of freedom of expression, respect for human rights and democracy), indicated last week that such a Tribunal would protect politicians from the publication of facts about their “private lives”. This is a contradiction in terms, as in an open and democratic society only the most intimate aspects of a politicians’ life can be said always to be truly private. (Of course, President Zuma has a vested interest in stopping the media from reporting on his private life, given the fact that his private life is rather adventurous and does not always conform to what he claims to believe when he speaks in public.)

He has also argued that the media tramples on peoples rights (by which I take him to mean the rights of politicians and their friends) to human dignity.

He continued by suggesting that the problem with the media was not only that it sometimes reported badly or even wrongly on events: it was ideological. Because some in the printed media do not agree with everything ANC leaders do and say, they are not in tune with the South African public. As President Zuma wrote:

The media must seriously conduct an introspection (sic) and open a constructive debate about the role of this institution in a post-apartheid South Africa. Is the media a mirror of South African society? Is it in touch with what the majority of South Africans feel and think? Does this institution actually know and understand South Africans? Why was it surprised by the explosion of national pride during the Soccer World Cup tournament? Why did South Africans decide to rise above the daily diet of negativity and defeatism that they are fed daily in the media?

So what is it to be? Will a Tribunal take over the role of the Press Ombudsman – but with enhanced powers? Will it censor journalists to stop them reporting “gossip” or other facts that are routinely denied by the well connected and the powerful? Will it be used to ensure that the media change its ideological stripes so that it becomes more compliant and in touch with what the majority of South Africans (read, members of the ANC) feel and think?

Before we have answers to these questions (on which the various ANC cadres who have commented on the need for a MAP seem to differ) it is not really possible to say whether the MAP has any chance of passing constitutional muster. A few preliminary points may be of interest though.

First, a MAP empowered to adjudicate on and punish members of the printed media will have to be independent. If it is not independent, it will be unconstitutional. A body appointed by Parliament will not be independent as it will in effect be appointed by the majority party.

If the proposed law therefore creates a MAP appointed by Parliament and that law empowers the MAP to punish journalists and newspapers, the law would be dead in the water. The limitation on press freedom would be so egregious that it could never be justifiable in an open and democratic society (although it might be well received in Russia) and would therefore not be found to be justifiable by our Constitutional Court.

Second, a MAP – even an independent one – that is empowered to address the perceived ideological impurity of some sections in the media will also be dead in the water. The very essence of media freedom hinges on the prohibition of state interference with the ideological content of what the media publishes. If the President does not like the attitude or ideological perspective of some in the media he has every right to complain and moan and shout about it. He can also make reasonable arguments about why the media is too cynical, hysterical or negative about South Africa.

But in the end – from a constitutional perspective, at least – he (or the legislature) has no power to interfere with the media to try and change the way it reports on what is happening in South Africa. If a newspaper only wants to report on corruption, crime, and how evil the ANC is, it has a constitutional right to do so (I might not buy that paper, but many others – with money to burn – probably will).

Just as members of the media can complain about the ANC but cannot tell the ANC what to think or do, so the ANC can complain about the media but cannot tell it what to write and what not to write. If the ANC wants to get the media to be more positive and less hysterical it needs to convince the media to do so through persuasion, charm and - just a thought – through good governance.

Third, if the MAP will be empowered to address the possible infringement of the dignity of individuals by the media, this might also be constitutionally problematic. At the moment courts are legally empowered to deal with this through our defamation laws. The Constitutional Court has developed our common law of defamation to bring it in line with the guarantees of media freedom and it is now far more difficult for any person – including any politician – successfully to sue the media for defamation.

If the MAT is required to apply a less onerous standard when it deals with complaints about the infringement of the human dignity of anyone, this would therefore most probably also be unconstitutional. If a court cannot impose a stricter standard to punish the media for defamation, then a MAP – who will always be less indpendent than a court – will never be constitutionally allowed to do so.

These preliminary remarks indicate that there is very little that the proposed MAP could legally and constitutionally do that the existing Press Ombudsman or the courts cannot already do. This suggests that the members of Parliament will waste lots and lots of their time – time perhaps better spent attending to the concerns of constituents about potholes, trigger happy policeman, lack of toilets and running water and dysfunctional schools. The legislature will thus either pass a law creating a MAP that will not change anything, or it will pass a law creating a MAP that would be unconstitutional and therefore would be declared invalid by our courts.

The question to ask (but maybe not of the Chief State Law Advisor) is: why bother?

Source: Constitutionally Speaking: Pierre De Vos

The Protection of Corruption Bill

After much critical comment from civil society on the Protection of Information Bill, last week the Chief State Law Adviser Enver Daniels chose to respond. This response does not look good for the future of freedom of expression and access to information in this country. Mr Daniels has chosen to simply dismiss the mass national and international protest submitted against the Bill. Apparently civil society is being "hysterical". I have to disagree. His attempts to diminish the impact of the mass of criticism are not going to be enough to silence the protests if all they essentially consist of is a position that can be summarised as: "I'm about 40% sure it should turn out alright".

The three chief areas of concern are simple enough: the wide powers for classification, and two of the penalty clauses against the release of classified information. Apparently, "...read in its entirety, the Bill would withstand scrutiny". This is in spite of the fact, putting aside these broader principled concerns of civil society, the drafters have failed to even consider the more pedantic contradictions within the Bill itself which reveal a strange level of scrutiny by the lawmakers. For instance, there are fundamental contradictions in application between section 19 and 24(2) which have not practicably been analysed.

According to Mr Daniels, "[w]e don't think the provisions are too wide". This in spite of the fact that any public official, if so delegated, can classify any document if it "may be harmful [or endanger or cause serious or irreparable harm] to the security or national interest of the Republic or could prejudice the Republic in its international relation" [Emphasis added]. The first concern here is the inclusion of "may". A decision-maker doesn't even need to be sure - if he has a suspicion, classification commences. And then it moves to those slippery terms of national interest and security - would bad publicity from another corruption scandal prejudice our international relations? And are delegated officials truly able to assess what my national interest would be, with no need to reference this against anything? Further, does national interest translate to government interest, or essentially ANC interest? These are not the kind of ‘finer details' which we should leave for time to solve: the fact that government is resistant to clearing up these definitions and applications before the Bill is passed should be making everyone uncomfortable.

Mr Daniels also said that lawmakers could not add in a caveat on allowing for the release of classified documents if it was in the public interest, which would be a caveat to protect journalists and activists from the draconian criminal penalties created. He noted that this was because he had no policy directive to do so. Perhaps he could have turned to Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA), a piece of constitutional legislation that should inform the construction of the Bill anyway, which also speaks of public interest waivers and could give the lawmakers some guidance in navigating these treacherous waters.

Mr Daniels did however note his own trepidation and was quoted as saying: "I hope people of integrity are going to perform these functions". However, hoping people will perform with integrity when there is no accountability mechanism put in place is a kind of hopefulness not appropriate for lawmakers who should be creating laws that, according to the rule of law, are certain and implementable. You cannot hope that checks and balances work, that do not in fact exist...even more disturbing is the fact that, once classified, public officials needn't even acknowledge the existence of the document. This allowance for bare denial makes the already somewhat toothless internal appeal mechanisms useless. The internal appeals mechanisms also provide for an inordinately delayed decision-making period and would add even more costs into the fray for activists.

There can be no way that the broad power given to officials with absolutely no effective accountability measures can ever be viewed as a constitutionally viable exercise of discretion. We as civil society do not need to have faith, and bare faith alone, in our decision-makers - this is why checks and balances, as well as guidance in decision-making, usually exist with the creation of new laws. Faith without evidence is religion rather than governance and is probably not a sound basis for informed public participation. And herein lies the rub - diminishing the information which the public sees about what its government is doing not only disempowers them, but makes the supposed representation of the publics' interest by their elected government farcical.

The solution is not as Mr Daniels proposes in the PAIA. An additional problem with the Bill is that - though not expressly conflicting - the conflicting priorities each law will have the effect of making PAIA a toothless tiger. My experience from working as an elected member on the National Coordinating Committee of the Deputy Information Officers Forum has taught me that the greatest inhibiter to Information Officers performing their function, which is to release as much information as possible, is their fear of reprisal by superiors. Let's turn now then to section 38 - the offences section that criminalises the disclosure of classified and related information. Although the section says "except where such disclosure is for a purpose and a manner authorised by law", which would include a release through PAIA, I am fairly sure that it won't take Information Officers very long to do their utilitarian calculation: comply with the PAIA Act which tells them to lean towards openness because it's the right thing to do, or take caution of the Bill which says proceed in secrecy or face imprisonment if you mess something up. They would have to be pretty masochistic to get this choice wrong, especially when there is no accountability once the document has been classified.

Another consideration to be had in analysing civil society's supposed hysteria is the concerted effort in the last few weeks of government to encroach on media freedom in all areas. The proposal of a Media Appeals Tribunal subject to parliament - which would obviously deprive the entity of the kind of independence needed to fairly monitor media - marks a trend of behaviour which everyone should be disturbed by.

Perhaps an analogy would assist Mr Daniels to understand civil society's position. Hysteria is when I am swimming in the ocean and then faint and drown because a piece of seaweed floats past. In contrast, it is not what is happening here: yelling to those around us to watch out when there is a great white shark swimming at speed towards us, jaws open but wearing a badge saying "Trust me". Until you tranquilise it or tie it down, I think the best move for civil society is to keep shouting. It is not just media and freedom of information law advocates who will have less to do on the weekends if this Bill is passed. The promotion of a government environment that can even better foster corruption affects us all. And we thought the Arms Scandal was bad - at least we knew about it.

Source: The South African History Archive

Has Enver Daniels met Jeff Radebe lately?

Paul Hoffman from the Institute for Accountability wonders whether government talks to government when it sets about messing with the free flow of information. It is hard to believe that the Minister of Justice, Jeff Radebe, and the Chief State Law Advisor, Enver Daniels, are part of the same administration working together toward the realization of the founding values of the country.

Ensuring “accountability, openness and responsiveness”, as section 1(d) of the Constitution puts it, is at the core of their mission.

The Minister, addressing the SANEF meeting last weekend, put it well when he said: “As government we will not treat you the same way as the apartheid regime treated Nat Nakasa?we will not enact laws detrimental to your cause, including the current legislation being debated?I will ensure that any law that comes into being must be in conformity with our Constitution.” Quite so.

Now contrast the contribution by Daniels this week to the debate on the contentious Protection of Information Bill in which he, unusually so, personally participated. He dismissed critics of the bill as “emotional and hysterical” before delivering himself of this gem: “While they [the critics] raise valid points, we don’t agree with them.” He disagrees with “valid points” at his peril if, as seems likely, the disputed provisions of the bill are held up for constitutional scrutiny in Court.

Among the valid points raised are those complaining that the bill does nothing to ensure that which the state is bound to ensure, namely, compliance with the principles of accountability, openness and responsiveness. Widely framed definitions, especially that of “the national interest” (which can cover a multitude of sins and has no place in the bill), and the discretion given to officials to be judges in their own classificatory cause ought to be giving cause for pause, not an unseemly rush to finalize the bill by September, meanwhile rubbishing carefully considered submissions made to parliament by highly qualified and very learned critics.

In an open democracy protection of information can not be allowed to trump access to information, the latter being guaranteed to all in the Bill of Rights. Reasonable and justifiable limitations on access to state information in the interests of national security and in accordance with the constitutional governing principles set out in section 198 ought to be kept to a minimum in the quest for transparency.

Daniels ought to know that the entire public administration is constitutionally enjoined to foster transparency by “providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information” [section 195]. He is hardly encouraging the public to participate in policy making (another principle governing him) by attacking the critics of the bill rather than dealing properly with the “valid points” he concedes they make. He does his high office and the Minister a disservice by playing the man instead of the ball/bill.

Paul Hoffman SC

Director, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa

Inside the matrix

The quaint brotherhood in the liquidations industry is starting to fall apart, showing up some astonishing tactics. One meaning for Mafiosi, according to the Merriman-Webster dictionary, is a person who is a member of a group of people likened to the Mafia; especially: a group of people of similar interests or backgrounds prominent in a particular field or enterprise. It would probably be stretching a point to describe a group of people networked within South Africa’s liquidations sector as Mafiosi. Nevertheless, they do have an overriding interest in generating mountains of filthy lucre. And they are now being subjected, to increasing doses of public exposure.

There is perhaps one major – and totally surprising - factor that would disqualify the group as Mafia. Where the original Mafia were linked by origin as Sicilians, this group is as diverse as it gets. There are Muslim elements, such as liquidator Enver Motala, who was arrested on July 2 on charges of fraud and corruption. There are Jewish elements, in attorneys Stan Rothbart, and in Motala’s only remaining partner, Norman Simon, and also their disgruntled ex-partner, Mervyn Swartz.

And then there are the black players: on the fringes ex-justice minister Penuell Maduna, and Vusi Pikoli, who is still director general of the justice department. The picture would be incomplete without a middle-aged, bespectacled white Afrikaner, represented by Leon Lategan, one of Motala’s chief button men, and a senior officer in the Masters Office, the unit of the justice department which appoints liquidators according to its “unfettered discretion.”

One of Lategan’s most unforgettable Motala appointments was seen in respect of RAG, a R1-bn bankruptcy. Maduna intervened in that case, long after the original four liquidators had done all the work, and appointed Motala as fifth liquidator. The action was struck out by the High Court. Maduna then simply appointed Lategan as an extra Master in the Pietermaritzburg Masters Office, and Lategan simply appointed Motala to RAG, apparently in contempt of court. The appointment has, however, stuck.

Other key players fit in-between this group. Take Enver Daniels, the Chief State Law Adviser, who became acting MD of the Masters Business Unit on January 29, 2003. Daniels, who has recently been on study leave to complete his doctoral thesis in law, was a Marxist way back when, like Pikoli. Again, Pikoli knows Maduna very well from their days in exile from the apartheid regime, and so on.

Like most such organisations, there has been lots of training involved within this network. Simon and Swartz selected Motala as their front man for converting their business, SBT Trust, into a “black empowered” entity. The basis for this selection has never been understood. For one thing, Motala had been arrested on charges of fraud and corruption, back in 1989, amid an alleged massive sugar swindle in Middleburg, Mpumalanga. The case has yet to be prosecuted; the file just seems to keep traveling around the country for reasons that cannot be fully explained. However, in the 1990s, Motala acquired lots of experience in liquidations – but on the receiving end. According to Mohan Patel, a medical doctor who loaned hundreds of thousands of rands to Motala in and around the mid-1990s, Motala went from one bankruptcy to the next. Some of the businesses were burned to the ground, in accidents no doubt. Today, Patel is just one of the many judicial opponents that Motala faces. Patel is sore about suing Motala for return of loans and interest, but fails to understand how Motala could be so insensitive to Patel’s role, then anyway, as a friend helping when Motala was down and out. Well, not quite, recalls Patel. At the time, Motala was the apparent owner of two luxury BMWs, a sports Mercedes Benz and a Porsche. The way Patel remembers it, at least one of those cars was mysteriously stolen from Motala.

And then fast forward to the year 2000, by which time Motala had enjoyed the full benefits of being trained by some of the “best” in the brotherhood. At the time, an offensive to clear the way for Motala was being waged. At the end of 1999, Oliver Powell, one of the country’s leading liquidators, had been “bust” by Maduna.

On December 9, 1999, Maduna stated that “possible prosecutions for alleged corruption at the Pretoria Master’s Office were expected as early as next month.” It was not just Powell’s premises that had been raided. On October 24, 1999, the Scorpions, an investigative unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA, itself a unit of the justice department), also searched the Centurion home of the Master of the Pretoria High Court, Ben Nell. In November 1999, Nell and two of his deputies, Charles Stewart and Eugene Januarie, were suspended with immediate effect. To this day, none of the prosecutions that Maduna promised have materialized. On the contrary, Powell has won two major court cases this year, and orders that every last thing seized from him be returned. Powell’s final big case will see him suing – in their present and/or previous capacities - Maduna, Jan Swanepoel (then head of the Scorpions, now of PricewaterhouseCoopers), Basil Nel (then of PricewaterhouseCoopers) and a former Sunday Times journalist, Amanda Vermeulen, for R60-m. It has hardly escaped attention that when Motala was arrested on July 2, 2004, his arraignment, following search and seizure, was by the Serious Economic Offences Unit (SEO), an elite unit of the South African Police Services.

The Scorpions and SAPS are as chalk and cheese. In full, the Scorpions are the Directorate of Special Operations, National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The NPA national director, Bulelani Ngcuka, has been in his position since mid-1998, and was thus Scorpions overlord when Powell’s business and personal life were ruined. Two weeks ago, news emerged that Ngcuka was resigning after only six years of his ten-year contract. Ngcuka reports to the new justice minister, Brigitte Mabandla. In another world, national police commissioner Jackie Selebi reports to the Minister for Safety and Security, Charles Nqakula. It is clear that Motala has not been investigated by the Scorpions. On the contrary, Motala has on more than one occasion publicly advertised that he was working with the Scorpions (for example, in the RAG and Krion cases), and has even been described in some media reports as the “Scorpions liquidator.”

The rivalry between the Scorpions and the SEO is hardly a secret. Maduna’s apparent protection of Motala may yet be countered by Maduna’s potential nemesis, in the form of Mike Tshishonga, a deputy director general in the justice department. In October 2003, Tshishonga blew the whistle, alleging that his political boss had a nepotistic relationship with Motala; further, that Maduna had “abused the infrastructure and staff of the justice department for the purposes of advancing his personal interests,” and that Maduna had endangered South Africa’s criminal justice system.

Beyond the criminal charges that Motala faces, his nemesis may well prove to be Garveni Creations, fast on its way to being the most infamous South African bankruptcy ever. This week, John Cameron, attorney to one of Garveni’s major creditors, PG Bison, released an independent report on the Garveni estate. It contained shocking new information, of a most detailed kind, on and around the behaviour of Motala, whose appointment to Garveni was voided by the High Court on April 29.Cameron alleges that “as has been suspected, the estate of Garveni has been maladministered by Motala and Frans Langford [the co-liquidator], their conduct being highly unprofessional, irregular and improper and deserving of the highest censure and in due course, will be the subject matter of various complaints and civil proceedings.” In earlier court papers, Cameron had alleged that the conduct of Motala in and around the Garveni case had been “prima facie suggestive of fraudulent conduct . . . the existence of fraudulent conduct is fortified and substantiated;” that “[Motala’s] appointment was sought and obtained under a very unusual set of circumstances, all of which are suggestive of fraud.” Among the more-alarming disclosures in Cameron’s new report, is that Neville Shifren, previously the CEO and major shareholder in Garveni, met Motala early in May this year; that is, after Motala had been removed as a Garveni liquidator. Motala presented Shifren with accounts of Knowles, Husein Lindsay, Inc (KHL), a prominent Johannesburg law firm. One of its senior partners, Mohamed Junaid Husein, had acted for Motala throughout the Garveni matter (and apparently continues to act for Motala). Shifren was presented with KHL accounts in an amount “in excess of R500 000.”Cameron states that, in regard to such accounts, Motala, after making certain calculations, demanded that Shifren “pay 50% thereof.” To this, Shifren reacted that “he would consider no such payment, to which Motala reacted that if that was the case, he would be locking up the premises and would prevent GOF [Garveni Office Furniture] from removing any further items therefrom.”The KHL account would have eaten a big chunk out of the Garveni estate, which had been valued initially at R4-m. Cameron’s new report shows that Rothbart also submitted “one account” to the Garveni estate. Rothbart’s “invoice does not indicate exactly what services were rendered and in regard to what matter and naturally, as Motala has failed to provide the relevant information, it is uncertain as to what professional services were rendered.” The Garveni estate also made out cheques to Motala’s brother, and to the son of Simon.

The nepotism first emerged at the “417” enquiry into RAG. There, the Masters Office is represented by Stephan du Toit, senior counsel, assisted by Rafik Bhana (apparently a relative of Motala) and Soraya Hassim (previously, or perhaps still, Motala’s fiancée, and the only apparent female member of the cast), and Husein. In the RAG matter, Rothbart represents Motala.Déjà vu. In the latest big liquidations event, the R1-bn-plus bankruptcy of MP Finance, more popularly known as Krion, a giant pyramid scheme, four liquidators were originally appointed in August 2002. On January 6, 2004, Lategan appointed two further Krion liquidators. One of them was Motala. One of the original liquidators Koos van Rensburg, of Negota KVR, asked Lategan to supply his reasons for appointing the new liquidators. Lategan failed to respond. Instead, Rothbart replied in writing that he now acted for Lategan and that further correspondence must be addressed to him. Rothbart’s letter appeared to have been the clearest admission that it is Motala, and not Lategan, who was making the Master’s decisions. There has been similar evidence that Motala stage-managed the RAG matter, and perhaps others, directly through Maduna’s offices.

Source: Money Web

DULLAH OMAR: JOBS FOR PALS

LONG, LONG AGO MR DULLAH OMAR was a humble and serious lawyer who espoused the cause of non-racialism and liberation. He is known never to have sued a client for non-payment of fees, believing that if they did not pay, they probably could not afford to pay. Twenty years ago, he was the senior partner of a leading law firm on the Cape Flats, known first as AM Omar & Co. and then as Omar & Vassen.

In the early eighties, he turned down an invitation to join the board of the new – privately owned – Gatesville Hospital, rudely denouncing the owners as “a bunch of capitalists”. In the eighties, he went to the Bar and, as a struggle lawyer, often accompanied his clients into detention. Not that long ago when, somewhat misguidedly, corporate lawyers Sonnenbergs invited him, in his capacity as the new Minister of Justice, to open their luxurious new offices in Cape Town, he soured the occasion by observing in his speech: “The poor definitely can’t come in here.”

But now, established as Minister of Justice and a senior leader of the ANC in the Cape, things appear to have changed. The minister’s children are major beneficiaries of “empowerment” shares worth many millions, in a variety of companies. Today, the Omar family owns a R650 000 holiday house in Betty’s Bay (Dr Verwoerd’s favourite resort) and recently Omar’s wife, Hadji Farieda, was pictured at the auction of a Constantia mansion that belonged to Bulgarian mass murderer, Goran Bojovic. It was knocked down to her on a bid of R1.2m. (For advice on their big business dealings do they consult Sonnenbergs, or is it Herbsteins, where daughter Fazlan is doing her articles?) And then there is the rapidly expanding network of friends and associates of the minister who have recently acquired jobs in the Public Service. Large numbers of lawyers once connected to Omar & Co, appear to have recreated Omar & Co in a new guise – on the State’s payroll. We have compiled a list of some of them:

• Enver Daniels, once a professional assistant in Omar’s firm, was appointed first as special adviser to the minister, and is now Chief Government Law Adviser.

• Denzil Potgieter, another Omar PA, was appointed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He has been elevated to the status of Senior Counsel at the Cape Town Bar, contrary to the Bar Council’s recommendation, and is tipped for judicial appointment.

• Mr Omar’s old law partner, Ramesh Vassen, was struck off the roll of attorneys when he was caught with a “short-fall” on his trust account. His appeal to have himself reinstated – after he repaid all the money he had stolen – was turned down by the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein in June. But, in the meantime, Vassen has been helped out with a job in the “service “ – as a Parliamentary liaison officer.

• Percy Sonn, once a professional assistant at Omars, is today Deputy Attorney General of the Cape.

• Shenaaz Meer, one-time articled clerk at Omars – and daughter of friend Dr Fatima Meer – first got a job at the Legal Resources Centre, and now sits on the Land Claims Court.

• David Mias, another attorney long associated with Mr Omar – he was also the escort of Dullah’s sister, Ragmat, for many years – was first appointed to run the Legal Reousrces Centre in Port Elizabeth. When it failed due to mismanagement, Mias was appointed State Attorney in Cape Town.

• Mias’s former partner, Ms Marcel Luter, was recently appointed Deputy State Attorney in Pretoria.

• Yusuf (Joey) Ebrahim, once a professional assistant in Dullah’s firm, never managed to get his law BA, but somehow UCT was persuaded to admit him to an affirmative MA course – which he never completed. In the meantime, Mr Ebrahim was made first an assessor to Judge President Friedman on the Cape Bench, and then, bless him, a judge in Bisho.

• Another prominent “Indian” attorney from the Cape Flats, Dines Gihwala, was recently made an acting judge of the Cape High Court. You may be surprised that we include him in our list of those in favour with Mr Omar. Gihwala was, after all, his arch-opponent for many years; one of those men of colour who was happy to serve on the ethnic “management” committees set up by the previous regime; the sort of “coloured” lawyer who did not want to get involved with defending “politicals”. In fact, just the sort of attorney of colour who would, in the new era, have his firm amalgamate with the ultimate in Broederbond firms, Hofmeyr Van der Merwe. So why should Mr Gihwala now have received the nod from the minister and have been appointed an acting judge? Speculation in informed circles is that the minister’s pride has been satisfied by Gihwala’s acknowledgement of his leadership. Gihwala has not only made a donation of R50 000 to ANC funds, but earlier this year persuaded the Hindu Association of Rylands Estate, of which he is a leading member, to throw a festive bash in honour of the minister. Great stuff in an election year. Not that everyone is that thrilled with the new-found affection between the two old enemies – unnamed “elements” in the Thornhill Residents’ Association – ANC stronghold of the Omar clan – expressed their disapproval by distributing a scurrilous pamphlet about Gihwala in their neighbourhood.

• Then there’s Omar’s political rival of the struggle years, Essa Moosa, who was first the UDF’s main attorney and then became ANC star Allan Boesak’s attorney. Sometimes described as a “dagga” lawyer from Athlone who made his first fortune out of International Defence and Aid Fund grants, Moose has rapidly ascended the social and Justice Department ladders from being appointed Co-ordinator of Lay Assessors. Early this year he was appointed an acting judge of the Free State High Court.

• The star in Omar’s firmament has to be Judge Siraj Desai, whose experience and undoubted ability made him a fit appointment to the Cape Bench. Judge Desai, too, started his career as a professional assistant in Dullah’s firm. Not that long before his appointment he pleased Mr Omar greatly by abandoning the more radical Unity Movement to join the ANC.

• Even old friends at the Mitchell’s Plain courts have not been forgotten. Nizaam Hendricks, long on the court staff and a frequent dinner guest of the Omars, was transferred to Pretoria as head of personnel in the department of Justice.

• Since Hendrick’s attorney wife, Gadija Behardien, also needed a job on their transfer north, the department’s head of personnel (Hendricks) was fortunately able to assist with a local post – that of deputy State Attorney in Pretoria. Hold your breath. Who is next in line for a job? Will it be Ebie Mohamed, Nita Hanmer or Dullah’s charming and attractive old friend, Nicky van Driel?

Source: Nose Week: Issue # 24